HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-09-2008 HPC MinutesCity of Saratoga
H E R I T A G E P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
MINUTES
Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2008 8:30 a.m.
Place: Planning Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Type: Regular Meeting
1. Routine Organization
A. Roll Call
PRESENT – Commissioners Koepernik, McCarty, Gommersall, Vice Chair
Marra, and Chair Kellond
ABSENT – Commissioner Tai
GUESTS – Ms. Jenny Taylor, Mr. Salim Sagarchi, Mr. KyungMo Shin
B. Approval of minutes from August 12, 2008 meeting – Approved 50
C. Posting of Agenda – Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the
agenda was posted on September 4, 2008. – Staff announced this item
D. Oral & W ritten Communication Any member of the public may address the
Commission about any matter not on the agenda for this meeting for up to
three minutes. Commissioners may not comment on the matter but may
choose to place the topic on a future agenda. Mr. Sagarchi said that he has
come to the HPC to discuss putting a fence around his property at 13901
Saratoga Lane which is located on a Heritage Lane. Mr. Sagarchi said that he
was in the middle of construction of the wall when he got a call that he had to
stop construction of the wall and that he was surprised since the planner that
approved the project had not mentioned that the property was on a Heritage
Lane and needed HPC review. He showed the HPC pictures of the fence that
he would like to construct that included a picket wood fence constructed in
between the newly constructed concrete columns. He said that he is
bothered by the lack of incentives to submit for HPC review since the
application fee is expensive. Commissioner Koepernik stated that the HPC
would also be in support of a program that offered historical incentives and
requested that Mr. Sagarchi express his concerns in writing and submit them
to the HPC. Mr. Sagarchi said that he would consider such a letter since there
needs to be motivation for HPC review. Chair Kellond asked Mr. Sagarchi to
submit the letter to staff so it could be placed on an HPC agenda for
discussion. Ms. Taylor stated that she was questioning the design of the wall
for 13901 Saratoga Lane. She said that the real reason she came to today’s
HPC meeting was to discuss the removal of the Oak from the City’s Heritage
Orchard and had the understanding that the removal of the tree was already a
done deal but admitted that she had not yet reviewed the minutes from the
HPC and City Council. Ms. Taylor stated that she was of the belief that West
Valley College would not want the removal of the tree to become a public
problem and that the removal of the tree would involve the use of large
equipment and that this equipment could damage the orchard trees and that it
would be reckless to remove the tree. Ms. Taylor stated that West Valley
College was surprised that so many Saratoga residents were concerned with
the removal of the tree and that she would like the Heritage Orchard to have a
historic standing and that it would be an interesting exercise to research the
history of the orchard ownership to determine if there was more history to it
than just being a orchard.
E. Oral Communications – Historic Preservation Commission direction to Staff –
Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. – The
Commission directed staff to schedule the following items for discussion at
next month’s meeting: plaques, register project, costs of updating list.
Commissioner Gomersall stated that she would be absent for the October
meeting.
2. Old Business
A. Discuss National Registry & Saratoga Landmark Plaques
B. Discuss Heritage Orchard Signage
3. New Business
A. 8:30 a.m. Site Visit – 13514 Hammons Avenue – Review proposed new
stucco exterior wall covering for an existing adobe brick home. – Site visit
completed. Item discussed. Commissioner Koepernik stated that he could not
support the existing structure being altered as proposed since doing so would
cause the loss of its most significant historical element. He also stated that he
would not support the replacement of the existing wood windows since there is
no need to alter the existing windows as they can be repaired. He repeated that
he could not support losing the adobe structure. Commissioner McCarty stated
that she agreed with the statements made by Commissioner Koepernik in that
she would like to maintain the existing adobe exterior wall but would be in
support of replacing the windows with new dual pane windows with the same
style as the existing windows. Chair Kellond reminded the Commission that the
focus of the project discussion should be on the projects historical significance.
He stated that the addition to the structure had been done according to the
Secretary of the Interior Standards and he believed that the project would meet
Criteria “C” in that “It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period
or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous
materials” and that he felt it was important to preserve the adobe structure. Chair
Kellond stated that it could be difficult to apply stucco over the adobe walls as the
methods required to affix mesh lathe to the exterior of the structure may not stay
in the adobe and could collapse over time. Mr. Shin said that contractors he had
consulted had told him that there was a new kind of adhesive that could be used
to attach the lathe to the stucco walls. Chair Kellond said that he would not
support adding stucco to the building and the window openings should not be
modified; any new windows are to be in character with the existing building; the
building should be added to the Heritage Resources Inventory List.
Commissioner Koepernik said that there could be damage to the adobe caused
by changing out the windows and that the existing windows can be repaired if
necessary since he did not believe that windows should be removed because
they are old and that other techniques such as shades and drapes can be used
to reduce heat loss. Chair Kellond stated that there was no significant
architectural value to the existing windows and that the correct choice of
replacement windows could be compatible with the style of the structure and that
it is the adobe construction materials that meet the criteria not the windows. Mr.
Shin said that he wanted to replace the existing windows because they are noisy
since he lives on a corner. Commissioner Koepernik stated that the existing
wood windows can be repaired. Chair Kellond stated that due to the age of the
structure he could not make a historical argument to preserve the windows. Vice
Chair Marra stated that he too did not want the adobe walls to be covered with
stucco and that covering the existing exposed wood beams would make the
windows to narrow. Chair Kellond said that he would support a new design for
the windows that would not cause a change to the size of the existing window
openings and would be in support of new wood windows with a style consistent
with the building. Commission McCarty said that the materials submitted by the
applicant stated that the window sills would be removed and she would like these
sills to remain on the windows. Commissioner Gomersall said that she agreed
with Chair Kellond that the present addition is compatible with the Secretary of
the Interior Standards but she would prefer if the entire house was adobe. Chair
Kellond asked for a motion and that the motion should identify if the structure
was historically significant, does it meet the criteria, and discus specific issues.
Commissioner Gomersall stated the project would meet Criteria “C”, the stucco
over the adobe should be denied, and the applicant should come back with an
alternative window design. Mr. Shin said that his house is not complete in that
there are different exterior styles and that he would like the house to be more
consistent by adding new stucco and new windows and that he likes the Mission
architectural style. Chair Kellond stated that the house is attractive and has
historical significance and it meets at least one of the seven criteria and that
there is a great opportunity for the applicant to make the project new and fresh
while maintaining the adobe construction. Commissioner Koepernik agreed that
the house has historical significance and that it met criterion “C”. Motion to
continue the project by Chair Kellond, seconded by Commissioner Koepernik
with the following recommendation: The application is being continued so as to
give the applicant additional feedback from the HPC, the project meets Criteria
“C” of the seven criteria needed to deem the property historically significant and
to direct staff to place the structure on the historical list; the applicant is to return
to the HPC with an alternative proposal for the exterior windows and at that time
the HPC will make a final determination. Carried on a 50 vote.
B. 8:45 a.m. Site Visit – 13601 Saratoga Avenue (Heritage Lane) –
Review proposed relocation of an existing storage container from Saint
Andrew’s Episcopal Church/School Parish and School to the playfield. Site
visit not completed. Item discussed. Motion to approve the relocation of
the trailer by Chair Kellond, seconded by Commissioner Koepernik.
Carried on a 50 vote.
C. Discuss the September 3, 2008 Joint City Council/Heritage Preservation
Commission meeting and action items. Item Discussed. – Vice Chair
Marra stated that it was his understanding that the City was going to have
a consultant update the list and that the City Council was going to leave
the manner of the presentation of the plaques to the HPC. Commissioner
McCarty asked if the HPC had indeed lost control of the Orchard. Chair
Kellond stated that the City Council has backed off from that proposal at
this time. Chair Kellond said that the HPC needs to get the orchard sign
approved and that the second issue is the determination of who controls
the orchard and that education with respect to the orchard has always
been on the HPC’s agenda and that the HPC would like to work with
Parks and Recreation on events for the orchard and that the HPC got
good feedback on the presentation of the plaques. Chair Kellond asked for
a volunteer to take photographs of the properties that would be getting a
plaque and that these photographs are to be taken prior to the next HPC
meeting. Commissioner Koepernik stated that he nominated Vice Chair
Marra to take the photographs.
4. Pending Items
A. Update the Heritage Resources Inventory List – Item Discussed. Vice
Chair Marra stated that this discussion should be on hold until staff has
had the opportunity to get prices from consultants.
B. National Register Applications – Item Discussed. The HPC agreed to split
up the task of resubmitting the National Register applications for the
McWilliams House and the Museum. Commissioners McCarty and
Gomersall will work on the McWilliams House and Chair Kellond and Vice
Chair Marra will work on the Museum. Vice Chair Marra said that the HPC
has paperwork on the orchard and that we need to get approval from the
City Council.
5. Adjournment
Adjourn to 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, October 14, 2008, Planning Conference Room,
13777 Fruitvale Avenue.